My Case for Atheism …………… February 4, 2013


In light of the many fables presented in the Bible pertinent to human origin it is my contention that the beliefs of Christianity are incompatible with the science of evolution. It is only recently that many of the religious have decided that the Biblical stories of human origin were metaphorical, meaning figurative or nonliteral. Throughout history the followers of Christianity believed the stories literally. The authors of the Bible took great pains to depict the ancestral lineage through the ages. It is clear that the Bible authors meant it to be a literal presentation.  

Evolution has been denigrated by believers in many ways. From the present incomplete fossil record, to supposed irreducible complexities, to the Cambrian explosion, and even to the argument, irrelevant to science, that evolution demotes mankind to the level of an animal, the bombardment from the religious has proceeded nonstop. Nevertheless, evolution remains, despite some problems, the best scientific explanation for human origin.


Religions all have the same origin. As primitive humankind ventured about they saw forces at work which at  the time were unexplainable. They saw lightning, storms, earthquakes, volcanoes, and floods. They saw the abundance of the world and wondered from whence it came. The human mind, having been conditioned by events in their lives, decided that behind every force there had to be a cause. (Such reasoning kept them safe from predators) They saw the effects all around them. Effects, they decided, needed a cause. No one can say what God, or thing, they decided upon first as the cause—that  information being lost to the deep past. That was the beginning of belief. Since then, just as the first conjecture about cause, every religion springing from that point has found its origin within the fertile imagination of humankind.

Evolution has a foundation of research and discovery to support its assertions. Christianity requires a foundation if it is to stand up to scrutiny. That foundation is the original sin. If Adam and Eve were metaphorical, as many modern theologians proclaim, meaning Adam and Eve did not exist, then the original sin as a foundation for Christianity vanishes. Science has proven these modern theologians correct. They have themselves undermined the foundation of Christianity. If Adam and Eve did not exist, then there is no original sin and no need for redemption through the human sacrifice of Jesus. The house of cards cannot stand without a foundation.

Naturally one cannot expect the beast of Christianity to die so easily. It is, after all, a very lucrative scam. Having such a heavy investment in time, and considering the millions of dollars which are accrued each year, the belief of Christianity has much to lose. Instead of collapsing under its own absurdities, Christianity takes a step back. The modern theologians claim that the story of Adam and Eve is a symbolic representation for the fall of humanity into sin. This tendency to withdraw backwards into other comfortable niches is an on-going occurrence whenever science is used to examine some Biblical assertion. Just as the assertion that Satan arranged for dinosaur fossils in order to tempt humans into disbelief is an absurdity, so are these modern attempts to maintain illogical belief in unsubstantiated doctrine.

This, along with many other incongruities in Christianity, like the lack of evidence for the existence for Moses or Jesus, point to the likelihood that the Bible, like many legends at the time, is simply a collection of folklore myths.


There is so much information, and lack of information, that indicates that the God of the Bible is no more real than Zeus, Odin, or the long line of Gods derived from human imagination, that  it can be safely concluded that the lot of them are fictitious. Does this leave room for a God, at least a God of some sort?

There is no evidence of a God’s intervention in human affairs. A beseeching by humans for God’s intervention have proven no more reliable than those same humans imploring a rock to intervene and answer prayers. So what remains for a God? What criteria must a God meet in order to accommodate these guidelines:

  • It has to be a God that is unknown even to the human imagination
  • It knows nothing of humanity or is disinterested in humanity
  • It has never been observed
  • It cannot be omnipotent as we could detect that, there would be evidence of its influence in everything
  • It cannot be omniscient if it is unaware of us or our pleadings
  • It cannot be omnipresent as it would know of us and be detectable

Without the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, or omnipresence, can it be called a God, as defined by many religions?

I conjecture, as I have stated in the past, that such a being, while perhaps possessing some of the qualities of a God, did not create us, does not know of us, and certainly never intervenes in any human affairs. Most likely this being did not create the universe and is most likely a product of it, as we are. At this point such a creature is also a product of our imagination and is no more real than leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, or Tinkerbell.


In the meantime I think it is safe to presume there are no gods of any type. Until such time as science discovers one, we should relax, stop worrying about meeting some entity’s needs or wants, and focus instead on our needs and wants. Knowing this is the only life we will ever have should prompt us to live it well, and upon our deaths leave remaining humanity with good memories of our lives. Our efforts should be the perpetuation of humanity, the protection of humanity; meaning we should reach out to the stars and find additional homes for humanity. As it stands now, one good hit by a sizeable asteroid, one big blast from a super volcano, one humongous war, or even humanity’s destruction by some heretofore unknown biological contagion, and all of our history, our discoveries and accomplishments, will disappear as if they never occurred at all.

There is much work to be done but first we must accept the challenge. The immediate challenges include population growth control, environmental preservation, and quality of life improvement for everyone. Outmoded philosophical and religious stances standing in the way of engaging this challenge must be abandoned. Future challenges include finding humanity new homes even if it means sending ship-loads of humans out into space with uncertainty, without knowing what they will find at journey’s end. 

This entry was posted in Religion and Reason and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s